caselaws
Supreme Court of India
Mukesh & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 3 April, 2017Author: L N Rao
Bench: S.A. Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao
[pic]Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4776-4777 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.31158-31159 of 2013)
MUKESH & ANR.
…. Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
….Respondent(s)
With
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4778-4779 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.34174-34175 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4780 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.35494 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4781 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.35496 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4782-4784 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.35818-35820 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4785 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.35938 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4786 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.36908 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4787-4792 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.37292-37297 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4793 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.37533 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4794-4797 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.37868-37871 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4798-4800 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.37983-37985 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4801 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.39421 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4802 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.39424 of 2013)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4803-4806 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.601-604 of 2014)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4807 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.3605 of 2014)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4808 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.7357 of 2014)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4809 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.12929 of 2014)
CIVIL APPEAL Nos 4812 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21393 of 2014)
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
The Appellants are children of Government employees who died in
harness. They applied for appointment to Class III Government posts on
the basis of instructions governing compassionate appointments. The
competent authority recommended the appointment of some of the Appellants
in Class III posts. However, they were appointed on fixed pay as Prakhand
Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/Nagar Shikshaks, etc. The Writ Petitions filed
by them were allowed and the Respondents were directed to appoint them in
Class III or Class IV posts or to pay them regular pay scales in the post
of Assistant Teacher. The Appeals filed by the Government challenging the
said judgment in the writ applications were allowed. The Appellants who
have challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in
these Appeals submitted that they are covered by a judgment of this Court
in Vishwanath Pandey v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in (2013) 10
SCC 545. Vishwanath Pandey who was similarly situated to the Appellants
succeeded in the Writ Petition filed by him for appointment on a regular
pay scale. However, the said judgment was reversed by a Division Bench. By
the aforementioned judgment, the Appeal filed by Vishwanath Pandey was
allowed by this Court holding thus:-
“8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinised the
records. It is not in dispute that even though the District Compassionate
Committee had made recommendations on 29-11-2005 that the appellant may be
appointed on a Class III post, he was not given appointment because of the
ban imposed by the State Government. It is also not in dispute that after
lifting of the ban, the District Compassionate Committee recommended the
appellant’s appointment as teacher on compassionate ground and he was
appointed against the vacant post by the District Superintendent of
Education, Buxar. That order was neither rescinded nor modified by the
competent authority on the premise that after coming into force of the 2006
Rules, the appellant could have been appointed only by the Panchayat Samiti
on the post of Prakhand Teacher. Therefore, the Division Bench of the High
Court was not at all justified in recording a finding that the appellant
could have been appointed only as a Prakhand Teacher by the Panchayat
Samiti on fixed pay. Unfortunately, the Division Bench overlooked the fact
that the appellant had been appointed as per the policy of compassionate
appointment framed by the State Government and that policy does not
envisage the appointment of the dependant of a deceased employee on fixed
pay.”
By the impugned judgment, a Division Bench of the High Court correctly held
that the Appellants have no legal right to seek appointment on
compassionate grounds. Compassionate appointments are not a source of
recruitment and they are made to provide succour to the family of an
employee who dies in harness. In the State of Bihar compassionate
appointments are governed by instructions issued by the Government. Some of
the Appellants were recommended for appointment to Class III posts on a
regular basis by the District Compassionate Committee. However, they were
appointed as Prakhand Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/ Nagar Shikshaks, etc.
on a fixed pay. The Appellants could not have been appointed on a fixed
pay and they are entitled for appointment to either on Class III or Class
IV posts on regular basis or payment of regular pay scale in the posts of
as Prakhand Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/Nagar Shikshaks, etc. in which
they are working at present. Some of the Appellants who were recommended
for appointment to Class III posts but were appointed as Prakhand
Teachers/Panchayat Shikshaks/Nagar Shikshaks, etc. on fixed pay are
similarly situated to Vishwanath Pandey and they are entitled to be
appointed on a regular pay scale.
The other Appellants who were appointed after 01.07.2006 are not entitled
to the relief granted to those who were recommended for appointment to
Class III or Class IV posts prior to that date. A Full Bench of the Patna
High Court in State of Bihar and Others v. Rajeev Ran Vijay Kumar, reported
in (2010) 3 PLJR 294 (FB), held that the dependents of deceased Government
employees do not have a legal right to be appointed in Government posts.
Their appointments on compassionate grounds shall be in accordance with
Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules,
2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) which came into force w.e.f.
01.07.2006. Rule 10 of the said Rules provides for employment on
compassionate grounds to the dependents of teaching/ non-teaching employees
against available vacancies of Panchayat Teachers/Block Teachers/Prakhand
Teachers, etc. Such appointments can be made only on a fixed pay by the
committee constituted under the Rules. The Appellants who have not been
recommended for appointment to Class III or Class IV posts prior to
01.07.2006 are not covered by Vishwanath Pandey’s case (supra). On the
other hand, they are squarely covered by the judgment of Full Bench of the
Patna High Court. They are not similarly situated to those who were
recommended for appointment to Class III posts prior to 01.07.2006. The
Appellants, who were appointed after 01.07.2006, the date on which the
Rules came into force, are not entitled to claim appointment on regular pay
scales. It is relevant to note that the judgment of the Full Bench of the
High Court of Patna was challenged before this Court. The said SLP was
withdrawn with liberty granted to the petitioners therein to approach the
Government for suitable relief.
For the foregoing reasons, we direct that the Appellants who were
recommended for appointment to Class III or Class IV posts prior to
01.07.2006 will either be appointed on Class III or Class IV posts on
regular basis or will be entitled for continuance as Teachers on a regular
pay scale. The other Appellants who were appointed after 01.07.2006 will
not be entitled for the relief of regular pay scales. However, we grant
them liberty to approach the State Government for suitable relief in terms
of the order passed in SLP (C) No.29655 of 2010.
The Appeals are disposed of. No costs.
………………………………….J
[S. A. BOBDE]
..………………………………..J
[L.
NAGESWARA RAO]
New Delhi,
April 3, 2017
Comments